Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 17 March 19 >

March 18 edit

Template:Jim Clark Rally edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ RobTalk 13:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles in this template exist, this simply serves no purpose until more rally articles are created. QueenCake (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is premature. It should be deleted or userfied until the articles are made, unless 3 to 5 links turn blue in the next week or so, in which case I would support keeping for now, with the option to renominate if links start turning red again. —PC-XT+ 03:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion, per nom. One primary sourced 2010-titled article, created in 2010, morphed into a non year-specific, generic overview/results table in 2013, expanded but again without any tertiary sources until Feb 2016, does not need this template.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Hassan Rana edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Relist here. ~ RobTalk 14:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. Only one film is released out of three. Musa Talk  18:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because TFD isn't very concerned about notability. That's for AFD to decide. However, a navbox is for navigation between related articles. This one links 4 articles, total. Some may consider that too few. (I don't, necessarily.) The chances of this template being deleted would increase if the articles were deleted, first, but I don't see any such proposal. —PC-XT+ 03:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:English to urdu wikipedia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Obaid Raza/English to urdu wikipedia. The technical concerns have been resolved. If this page is entirely unneeded at this point, the author can request deletion as per WP:G7. ~ RobTalk 13:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I previously requested this "template" be speedy deleted as article content in template space. The template's author (against the rules) removed the speedy deletion template. As the author also removed article content at the same time, I did not press the matter, but asked for an explanation on his or her talk page: User talk:Obaid Raza#Template:English to urdu wikipedia. In two weeks no explanation has been forthcoming, and the author has now begun using it again to store article content. NSH002 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • this template is intended for translation of english wikipedia templates and lists into urdu wikipedia, and see User:محمد شعیب/LinkTranslator.js--Obaid Raza (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace: This type of scratch work area feels like something suited for userspace. Is the user even aware they can do that? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, say, to User:Obaid Raza/Template:English to urdu wikipedia and help the user know how to use it there —PC-XT+ 03:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • but, LinkTranslator.js not run in userspace.--Obaid Raza (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to work in my userspace. Are we using it differently? —PC-XT+ 05:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 05:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, This script directly create pages on the Urdu wiki, With template's content in urdu translation.--Obaid Raza (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is indeed the case, then someone needs to modify the script so that either it doesn't need an intermediate page at all, or if that is not possible, so that it can use an intermediate page in user space. --NSH002 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it have something to do with the exclamation points (!!) link? That one doesn't work for me. I left notes about this discussion on the English and Persian talk pages for this script. —PC-XT+ 03:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Actually, that link appears to simply be an alternate translator using a labs tool instead of the api. Is another script involved? —PC-XT+ 05:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Obaid Raza, can you please give us a step by step list of how you use this tool to make a translation on another language wikipedia? I don't know how to make it save the translated page. I thought the instructions said to copy/paste, but I was using a translator to read them. —PC-XT+ 05:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, pending fix; this is a tool that can't be used except where it is, apparently, and it's useful. This is a textbook case of WP:IAR (at least for the meantime). PS: If it were userspaced, it would not need to "Template:" in it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This should be kept while we figure this out. This page seems to hold the English version, which is to be exported. Looking at the js code, I don't see why it needs this page for any vital function, but I seem to be missing something. It works for me straight from the articles, or from my userspace, but doesn't save to other languages automatically. (I checked on ur.wp, too, though just common.js; it could be there is a skin-specific script.) Maybe there is an issue where the script won't run on protected pages or something. (I also prefer leaving Template: out, but it sounded like it could be important for it to be called a template. Then again, I've seen people use Template: as if it was Draft: often, and the comment on the page in question seems to call article copies templates.) —PC-XT+ 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited the script, you can delete it.--Obaid Raza (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. (For ease of reference, see this diff). --NSH002 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox U.S. national banks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep/don't merge. Consensus is that national banks are sufficiently different than companies so as to warrant their own infobox template. I was especially convinced by the argument that national banks issued currency, which requires unique parameters that probably shouldn't be a part of {{Infobox company}}. ~ RobTalk 13:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. national banks with Template:Infobox company.
The new country-specific template is a redundant fork of the existing one, into which any necessary new parameters should be added. ({{Infobox central bank}} may be an alternative target). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the template creator (and still having some difficulty with it), I would have to oppose a merge. Not so sure about the redundant fork. U.S. national banks (as this template would be used) were established by the National Bank Act and only existed between 1863 and 1935. The fields are sufficiently different from existing template infoboxes to warrant something separate. There were roughly 14,000 banks chartered by the U.S. Treasury under the act. I was just planning to start with the 68 in Idaho and go from there...--Godot13 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know normal practice is to put a transcluded notice on both affected templates, but since Template:Infobox company is a very widely used template, and it wouldn't get any breaking changes as a result of this merge, I don't think it makes sense to transclude the merge notice on the 60,000+ pages that aren't US national banks. Shouldn't the merge template only be transcluded in Template:Infobox U.S. national banks, and put in <noinclude>...</noinclude> on Template:Infobox Company? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. sst✈ 15:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SSTflyer: I think you did it backwards, and placed the noincludes on {{Infobox U.S. national banks}}. I swapped it for you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These banks were more than just companies, but an integral part of the monetary system between 1863 and 1935, issuing (but just circulating, but issuing) currency. Their quasi-governmental functions made them partly a governmental agency, not just a private corporation. Their distinct status deserves a distinct infobox. I have to wonder if you even glanced at the lead article for the subject. And frankly infobox company has more than enough parameters that aren't used in many deployments as it is; it doesn't there to become more bloated. oknazevad (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many banks outside the US (such as in the UK) also issued their own currency. We use {{Infobox company}} on articles about them - just as we do for existing articles on US National Banks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is enough research and source material in the field of U.S. national banks to justify the specialized fields currently included in the infobox (without drowning in the remaining fields). While I'm not certain about the banks in England (or other countries), but any U.S. banknote with the U.S. Treasury seal (including national banknotes) is still legal tender for face value, though you may have to go to a Federal Reserve Bank for redemption. This is a different category of "obsolete" bank...--Godot13 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have to agree that there is no reason why US banks of this type are more deserving than comparable banks of other nationalities. As for concerns about topic-specific parameters being overlooked, I don't see why simply including them in {{Infobox company}} wouldn't work just fine. All the organizers could go in the "Key People" parameter even, if we're concerned about overcrowding. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that "research and source material" (much less banknotes still being redeemable at face value; where the situation is just the same in the UK) are not good criteria for forking infoboxes; the issue is whether the exiting infobox is suitable. As it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it's not a company and it's not a central bank, it's an entirely different entity. And if banks in the UK (or any other country) were all established/founded under a single national act they should have their own infoboxes with the relevant information.--Godot13 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: For the sake of simplicity and clarity, where it does no harm, having options specific to the subject is IMO ideal. The raw wiki markup on articles will be clearer, as will the template documentation and maintenance. I see no real benefit to merging, only complication. fredgandt 21:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Or-fu-re edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect {{Orfur}} and {{Orfud}} to {{Or-fu-re}}. Consensus was to merge. After looking at the templates themselves, no actual merge needs to be completed. Redirecting {{Orfud}} to {{Or-fu-re}} will change nothing for existing transclusions (the optional replacement parameter will just be absent), and {{Or-fu-re}} and {{Orfur}} are functionally identical except for a single pipe in {{Or-fu-re}} that makes the replacement parameter optional. ~ RobTalk 13:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Or-fu-re with Template:Orfur and Template:Orfud.
It seems that we have three shortcut templates for {{di-orphaned fair use}}: {{or-fu-re}}, {{orfur}} and {{orfud}}. I think that these should be merged into one template. {{Orfur}} is meant for non-free files which have been replaced by other images and therefore has a mandatory parameter where you specify the name of the replacement image. {{Orfud}} is used when no replacement exists or at least isn't known and therefore doesn't have the replacement parameter. {{Or-fu-re}} has an optional replacement parameter and can therefore be used in all situations. I suggest that we merge all three templates into one template which has an optional parameter. Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Makes sense to reduce the clutter and potential confusion. 1 template could do the work of all 3, so why have all 3? {{Orfud}} is protected so we can assume has the highest visibility, but doesn't accept the replacement param. If it accepted it optionally, it would do the job of all 3. fredgandt 16:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as largely redundant —PC-XT+ 03:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_18&oldid=1139211683"